DCT
1:21-cv-00088
Westwood One LLC v. Local Radio Networks LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Westwood One, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Local Radio Networks, LLC (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Merchant & Gould P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:21-cv-00088, N.D. Ind., 05/24/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a limited liability company that resides in the judicial district, maintaining its principal place of business in Angola, Indiana.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s radio content delivery system infringes two patents related to methods for creating, managing, and broadcasting localized content for affiliate radio stations.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the logistical challenges of integrating customized, local content (such as advertisements and station identifiers) into programming supplied by a central broadcast network to numerous affiliate stations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patents-in-suit via letters beginning in May 2020. It further alleges that Defendant was aware of the patents even prior to this notice, based on its hiring of former Westwood executives who had knowledge of the patented technology.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-01-20 | ’203 Patent Priority Date |
| 2005-10-05 | ’448 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-08-12 | ’203 Patent Issue Date |
| 2010-12-28 | ’448 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-05 | Pre-suit notice of ’448 Patent alleged |
| 2020-07 | Pre-suit notice of ’203 Patent alleged |
| 2021-05-24 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,860,448: Methods and Computer Programs for Localizing Broadcast Content (issued Dec. 28, 2010)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the conventional method of transmitting descriptions of localized content from a broadcast affiliate to a content provider—via fax or email—as inefficient and difficult to manage when dealing with numerous affiliates and recording artists (’448 Patent, col. 2:53-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer program that provides a centralized and streamlined workflow. The program prompts users at different affiliate stations to enter descriptions of localized content, transmits those descriptions to a central provider, and then makes the descriptions available to a recording artist to create the final audio content, which is then sent back to the respective affiliates (’448 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-11).
- Technical Importance: The system aimed to replace ad-hoc, manual communication with a structured, software-based process, enabling a broadcast network to scale the production of customized local content across many different markets (Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of all claims, with a focus on independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include computer program code to:
- Prompt a first user for a description of first localized broadcast content for a first broadcast affiliate.
- Transmit that description to a broadcast content provider.
- Prompt a second user for a description of different, second localized broadcast content for a second broadcast affiliate.
- Transmit that second description to the broadcast content provider.
- Prompt a recording artist to record the first and second localized content, creating first and second recorded content.
- Transmit the first recorded content to the first affiliate and the second recorded content to the second affiliate.
U.S. Patent No. 7,412,203: Systems, Methods and Apparatus for Operating a Broadcast Network (issued Aug. 12, 2008)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Traditional radio networks delivered real-time audio streams with fixed-length breaks that affiliates were required to fill. This could lead to "dead air" or the use of generic filler content if an affiliate could not sell enough local advertising, and often resulted in "sloppy network rejoins" when transitioning back to network programming (’203 Patent, col. 3:39-54; col. 7:50-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a file-based system where a content provider sends discrete content files and an electronic schedule, rather than a real-time stream. An affiliate station stores these files locally and can create its own local content. The system plays network content according to the schedule until a "break" indicator appears, at which point it inserts preselected local content. Because the local content is not constrained by a fixed break length, the system can "seamlessly" resume network content without requiring complex resynchronization, thereby allowing for dynamically sized breaks (’203 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:2-9).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided local affiliates greater flexibility and control over their broadcast, particularly in commercial breaks, by decoupling their local programming from the rigid timing of a real-time network feed (Compl. ¶13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least claims 1-8, with a focus on independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
- The essential elements of independent method Claim 1 include:
- Periodically receiving and storing generic content files.
- Periodically creating and storing locally generated content files.
- Using an electronic schedule with indicators for generic content playback and for breaks.
- Preselecting local content to be played during a break "without regard for the length or amount" of that local content.
- Playing generic content per the schedule until a break indicator, then playing the preselected local content until it is completed.
- "Seamlessly resuming" the generic content playback "without the need for resynchronization with the electronic schedule or dynamically resizing the content files."
- Repeating the process.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s "Radio Velocity Control computer hardware and software technology," referred to as the "LRN Program" (Compl. ¶18). This system is alleged to comprise a "Voice Tracker tool, an LRN Portal, a server, and a cloud storage site" (Compl. ¶20, ¶44).
Functionality and Market Context
The LRN Program is a content management and delivery system for radio broadcasting. It allegedly allows LRN’s affiliate stations to create and schedule localized content, such as voice tracks, which are then integrated with generic content provided by LRN (Compl. ¶21, ¶46). For example, the complaint includes a screenshot of the "Localized Track Recorder" interface for station WAXM-FM, which displays a list of text descriptions for localized content to be recorded (Compl. Ex. 3; ¶21). The complaint alleges the LRN Program is marketed as a direct competitor to Plaintiff's offerings, touting "maximum custom localization and station owner control" (Compl. ¶29, ¶37).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’448 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt a first user for a description of first localized broad cast content that is to be broadcast by a first broadcast affiliate | The LRN Program prompts a user at a first affiliate, WAXM-FM, to enter descriptions for localized content via its "Localized Track Recorder" interface. | ¶21 | col. 3:1-4 |
| prompt a second user for a description of second localized broadcast content that is to be broadcast by a second broadcast affiliate | The LRN Program prompts a user at a second affiliate, KNEC-FM, to enter different localized content. A screenshot shows the LRN Program operating for KNEC-FM (Compl. Ex. 4). | ¶23 | col. 3:1-4 |
| ...wherein the first localized broadcast content is different than the second localized broadcast content | The localized content for WAXM-FM is alleged to be different from the content for KNEC-FM. | ¶24 | col. 5:9-12 |
| prompt a recording artist to record the first localized broad cast content, thereby creating first recorded content | The LRN Program prompts a recording artist to record voice tracks, as shown in an instruction manual and screenshots of the user interface. An image from the instruction manual shows a "Record" button for creating a voice track (Compl. Ex. 5). | ¶25 | col. 6:6-10 |
| transmit the first recorded content to the first broadcast affiliate | The LRN Program transmits the created voice track and other recorded content to the corresponding broadcast affiliate for broadcast. | ¶26 | col. 7:13-16 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The claim distinguishes between a "user" who provides a text description and a "recording artist" who creates the audio. A central question may be whether the LRN Program's architecture and workflow maintain this distinction or if a single role at an affiliate performs both functions. The interpretation of "prompt" will also be critical.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that separate affiliates (WAXM-FM and KNEC-FM) use the system. Evidentiary focus may be on whether the system is used by distinct "first" and "second" users to create different content for transmission to a single "broadcast content provider" (LRN), as required by the claim structure.
’203 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| periodically receiving generic content files via a satellite downlink or an internet connection | The LRN Program periodically receives generic content files from LRN via the internet or a satellite downlink. | ¶45 | col. 3:29-32 |
| periodically creating locally generated content files | The LRN Program is used to create local content, such as "Voice Track" files, which appear in the electronic schedule. | ¶46 | col. 7:55-57 |
| using an electronic schedule having at least one or more indicators when... there is supposed to be a break | The LRN Program uses an electronic schedule or log, as depicted in a screenshot for station KNEC-FM (Compl. Ex. 4), which indicates time slots for network content and breaks for local content insertion. | ¶47 | col. 6:21-28 |
| preselecting which, if any, of the locally generated content files will be played during a given break without regard for the length or amount... | The complaint alleges the LRN Program preselects local files for insertion into breaks irrespective of the length of those files. | ¶48 | col. 9:11-16 |
| seamlessly resuming retrieving, playing and broadcasting... without the need for resynchronization... or dynamically resizing the content files | The LRN Program allegedly resumes playing generic content after a local break is completed without requiring resynchronization with the schedule, thus avoiding the need to resize files. | ¶50 | col. 9:21-26 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A key technical dispute will likely center on the "seamlessly resuming" limitation. The analysis will require understanding the LRN Program's underlying architecture to determine if it operates on the file-based, asynchronous model described in the patent, or if it employs a different form of timing or synchronization that falls outside the claim.
- Scope Questions: The meaning of "without the need for resynchronization" will be a critical issue for claim construction. The question is whether this term is limited to overcoming the specific "sloppy rejoin" problem of real-time feeds described in the patent's background, or if it has a broader meaning that could read on other file-based scheduling systems.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’448 Patent:
- The Term: "prompt a ... user" / "prompt a recording artist"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 recites separate steps for prompting a "user" for a description and prompting a "recording artist" to record. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether these terms are construed to require two distinct actors or roles, and whether the accused system's interface constitutes a "prompt" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly refers to a "user" interacting with the system to provide content descriptions, which could be argued to apply to any individual performing that function (’448 Patent, col. 3:6-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The overall claim structure and the description of the workflow create a distinction between providing descriptive text and creating an audio recording. The complaint itself treats these as separate actions performed by different entities (the affiliate user and the content provider's artist), suggesting the terms refer to distinct roles in the claimed ecosystem (Compl. ¶21, ¶25).
For the ’203 Patent:
- The Term: "seamlessly resuming... without the need for resynchronization"
- Context and Importance: This limitation appears to capture the core technical advantage of the invention over prior art real-time stream systems. Infringement will likely depend heavily on whether the LRN Program's method for transitioning from local content back to network content meets this definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that this phrase covers any file-based system that avoids the hard-timed rejoins of a continuous real-time broadcast feed, focusing on the outcome of a "seamless" transition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with the specific problem of "fixed-length 'breaks'" and the difficulty of timing a "network rejoin" (’203 Patent, col. 3:18-24; col. 8:29-33). A party could argue the term is limited to a system that specifically solves this problem, and that the patent's own disclosure of using a "sync point" to manage rejoins (’203 Patent, col. 8:33-44) narrows the scope of what it means to operate "without... resynchronization."
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. It claims Defendant induces its affiliate customers to infringe by providing the LRN Program and "instructions and marketing materials" on how to use it in an infringing manner. It also alleges the LRN Program is not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial noninfringing use (Compl. ¶28-35, ¶52-59).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on cease-and-desist letters sent in May and July 2020, as well as the allegation that Defendant hired former Westwood employees who had "knowledge of the workings of Westwood's patented program" (Compl. ¶27, ¶37, ¶51, ¶61).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of functional mapping: Does the evidence show that the accused LRN Program’s operational workflow and software interfaces perform the specific, multi-step processes recited in the claims? For the ’448 patent, this involves the distinct "prompting" of a "user" and a "recording artist," while for the ’203 patent, it involves the "seamlessly resuming without... resynchronization."
- A second central question will be one of claim construction: How will the court define key limitations that distinguish the inventions from the prior art? Specifically, the scope of "without the need for resynchronization" in the ’203 patent will be critical to determining if the accused file-based system infringes.
- Finally, a key issue for damages will be willfulness: The allegation that Defendant hired former employees with knowledge of the patented technology, if proven, could significantly influence a finding of pre-suit knowledge and intent, raising the potential for enhanced damages.